In many places it's difficult for serving members of a military (or those employed in government) to publish anything that deviates in any way from the official line, and in some places that might apply even to those in retirement. Not all military/political cultures are tolerant of dissent. It still might be possible to attract input from other stakeholders in conflict areas, who might have more freedom to express original views.

I've always wanted to see participation from current or past insurgents, though it's easier to talk about than to arrange.

For the journal it might be worth putting out groups of articles focused on specific regions or issues, asking experts to contribute and discuss varying viewpoints.

I think there may be a perception in some quarters that the site is primarily by and for Americans and those in the military, and that participants form outside those parameters are not as easily accepted. I don't think that perception is accurate at all, but as with so many perceptions it can have an impact even if it's not accurate. I'm not sure how that could be overcome, but it might help to have roundtable discussions on specific issues and invite or actively solicit participation from serious, informed foreign critics of US policy.

For the Council... I wouldn't say quality has declined, but I do notice that some of the people who were active participants when I joined, and whose posts made me want to join, are no longer active. That's probably inevitable; participants will always come and go. The question of how to build the participant base while maintaining quality will always be here, I suppose.